home

=NJAET Advocacy Committee= The concept of advocacy as stated by Webster's dictionary is " the act or process of [|advocating] or supporting a cause or proposal". The question of advocacy in Education Technology can be viewed in different directions. For example,
 * advocacy for funding of education technology,
 * advocacy for educational technology in the classroom or
 * advocacy for the need to increase educational technology infrastructure or
 * the need for Chief Technology Officers (CTOs) or IT Directors to understand the needs of the educational process to incorporate technology within the classroom.

Hopefully from the suggestions above we can narrow the scope of our mission state for NJAET and where we would like our committee to go. The mission/vision statement should also include who our audience will be for this advocacy group. With the change in Technology Literacy Standards in NJ, it is vital that these aspects of advocacy be brought before the public and legislature on the need to prepare students for the 21st century workplace. An example of ETAN's mission statement is "ETAN’s mission is to influence public policy-makers at the federal, state and local levels and to increase public investment in the competitiveness of America's classrooms and students." Below is ISTE's website on setting up an advocacy committee. http://www.iste.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Templates_and_Starter_Kits&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=34&ContentID=2863

Please add your comments. I like your addition of the CTO, but do you think it is part of the mission or it should be something we advocate for? Our mission is to insure that New Jersey’s public, parochial or private school students sustain a competitive edge in technology, by advocating for: · funding of education technology, · educational technology in the classroom, and · the need to increase educational technology infrastructure,

Student objectives and skills should be included in this mission statement because the legislature will be looking into how their monies would impact student skills and learning process.

Following the skills framework in 21st century partnership, "....The framework presents a holistic view of 21st century teaching and learning that combines a discrete focus on 21st century student outcomes (a blending of specific skills, content knowledge, expertise and literacies) with innovative support systems to help students master the multi-dimensional abilities required of them in the 21st century...." maybe should let the vision statement include the skill set that students would need for the global/technical landscape.

The statement below is the STEM objective. Some of this information could also be used in our advocating for funding of educational technology. ......"The STEM Education Coalition works aggressively to raise awareness in Congress, the Administration, and other organizations about the critical role that STEM education plays in enabling the U.S. to remain the economic and technological leader of the global marketplace of the 21st century. The Coalition advocates for strengthening of STEM-related programs for educators and students and increased federal investments in STEM education. We also support robust federal investments in basic scientific research to inspire current and future generations of young people to pursue careers in STEM fields. Members of the STEM Coalition believe that our nation must improve the way our students learn science, mathematics, technology and engineering and that the business, education, and STEM communities must work together to achieve this goal....."

Objectives: . · seek members to join committee · establish partnerships with other academic disciplines · establish partnerships with legislative members · discuss prioritizes the needs to be advocated

Plans: · post on website for our members · contact the other Associations, and hopefully they will post on their websites · identify the legislators who voted for technology

Future Goal: the need for Chief Technology Officers (CTOs) or IT Directors to understand the needs of the educational process to incorporate technology within the classroom

Update information as of 5/19/09 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Washington Education Policy Summit April 30-May 1, 2009

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">On April 30, the group was introduced to Keith Krueger, CoSN, and Trina Davis, ISTE. After the guest speaker, there was a discussion done by Hilary Goldman, ISTE, Davis Brock - Technology Coordinator for Elmore County Schools in Alabama, and Sara Hall from SETDA. There was a discussion on the funding from ARRA and the need to spending quickly and effectively. There is a need to advocate that after the second year that this should be the new baseline for funding educational technology Monies are starting to flow to pay salaries and to save jobs in education. Title I received $13 million, IDEA received $12 million, to develop a statewide data system has an allocation of $250 million and the EETT received $650 million. ISTE would like to hear from individual school district regarding ARRA and is preparing a survey for this purpose. It was mentioned that the EETT has very little structure and following the example in North Carolina, IMPACT, there would need to be a systemic change for schools. It was emphasized the difference between supplant versus supplement services that these monies could be used for within a district. The core elements should be 21st century learning environments that need to be written in the actual grant with a solid list of data elements. There is no need to modernize the building if the instruction is not modernized. One suggestion is getting one e-learning coach for every 1000 students at individual school districts. There is a need to develop ROI, return on investment, reports to demonstrate how monies were used to enhance the learning experience for students using technology in the classroom. It was suggested that we reach out to IDEA and Title I directors in the districts to find out how we could assist in providing technology for these students. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Davis mentioned the importance of having a technology plan and within the plan demonstrate how the ARRA monies could fulfill the requirements to provide technology within the district. This should be very specific within the plan. Also how EETT monies is being used for loacl district gains. There is a need to provide testaments on how teachers are presently using technology within the classrooms and the need to collect videos, pictures and teacher statements on the impact of technology within their classrooms. What data elements would be needed to validate the great experiences students are having the classroom? These elements need to be gathered together and presented to our senators, congressmen, representaives, etc. to demonstrate that the present funding is showing a difference in the classroom and the need to expand funding to better prepare the upcoming students for the 21st century workplace.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">In the second session, Jon Berstein from the Berstein Strategy Group presented on the Broadband Stimulus and E-rate. His presentation is located in the wiki. Jon discussed that Senators Rockefeller and Snowe have intorduced legislature that would make the E-Rate exempt from the ADA, Anti-Deficiency Act, which does not allow E-rate to send monies to schools unless there is monies in their accounts. This was an issue in August and December 2004 when USAC was shut down due to not having enough funding in the accounts even though they receive monies from vendors quarterly but they have to allocate monies yearly. This exemption would allow for E-Rate to allocate funding to district even though they would not receive monies from vendors annually. The question on the BroadBand monies and how it would be allocated was also mentioned. It was still not clear on how expanding would get to loacl school district. The question is whether this funding will only be for rural and "under served" students. There will be $3.9 billion in grants for this project. The hope is that $200 million will be for expanding public computer center capacities, $250 million for innovative programs for sustained broadband adoption and $350 million for data mapping for non-served or under-served areas. There will be one grant per state but implementation must begin by 9/30/2010 and need to be completed over 2 years. The question is the definition of "under-served"? This should be changed to include the bandwidth capacity for school district as "under-serving" students because they are unable to use the technology appropriately for 21st century skills. There is a need to raise the cap of E-Rate. The cap presently is $2.25 billion but it should be increased to at least be the rate of inflation. Jon mentioned about the ATTAIN Act, which is associated with NCLB. Attached is a document discussing the ATTAIN Act.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">In the third session was about Education Appropriation Issues which was moderated by Hilary Goldman. The speakers were Chris Gaston - office of Representaive Holt, NJ, Matthew Hussey- office of Senator Snowe, ME, and Lexi Saudargas- office of Senator Durbin, IL. Each speaker described their staff and what their profesional responsibilities are for each person they represented. They mentioned the need for their bosses to hear anecdotes and stories on how their constituents are affected by the Ed Tech funding and the how they can better serve the states the senators, representatives,congress people, etc. represent. The panel discussed the process of appropriation funding for the different legislatures and at the time the monies for Ed Tech had not be appropriated. They were not sure when this appropriation would be done but it would need to be soon because monies would need to allocated by the coming school year.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The fourth session, Jon Berstein taled about what each person present would need to say and do to advocate for Ed Tech and the difference of lobbying versus advocacy. In advocacy, the focus should be on how Ed Tech has improved teaching and learning. he went through a series of things to mention in our meetings including who we represented, why we were there, the relevance to students, facts, stats and stories relevant to technology in education, etc.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The next day May 1, I meet with July Wilcox - Legislative Assistant of Senator Lautenberg, Jason Tuber - Legislative Assistant to Senator Menedez and Margaret Schumacher - Legislative Assistant to Congressman Palone. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Further Information from CoSN received May 5, 2009 after Policy Summit.

//** Washington Notes **// //** May 2009 **// ** NTIA and RUS Joint Request for Information and Notice of Public Meetings ** In mid-April, CoSN, the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), and the National Education Association (NEA) filed comments with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and Rural Utilities Service (RUS) that advocated strongly for K-12 schools’ participation in the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP), which was established under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The organizations commented on several issues, including questions about eligibility requirements for entities seeking BTOP funds, the role of states in awarding grants to eligible entities, the role retail price should play in determining whether an area is underserved or unserved, broadband mapping requirements, and the expansion of computer center capacities. NTIA and RUS will use these and the hundreds of other comments that it received to inform their efforts to formulate parameters for BTOP and the RUS’ broadband program. One of the central concerns of CoSN, ISTE and NEA was that ARRA failed to specify that school districts were eligible to apply for BTOP funds. The three groups stated that it was plainly the ARRA framers’ intent that schools be included as eligible beneficiaries of BTOP. Additionally, the groups argued that it was critical that school districts be able to apply directly for BTOP funds without state interference because requiring “permission from the State before applying for BTOP funds will slow down the application process and consequently delay the stimulative effect of such projects.” CoSN, ISTE and NEA did agree, though, that districts should provide notice to states that they had applied for BTOP grants. CoSN, ISTE and NEA also urged NTIA to incorporate the concept of affordability into the BTOP program’s definitions of “underserved” or “unserved” areas. These definitional questions are critical as the BTOP program’s stated goal is to deliver broadband to those areas deemed unserved and underserved. The three groups explained that the cost of broadband services is an important factor in determining whether an area was unserved or underserved because “providing broadband at prices that are too high for area residents and schools to afford would have the same effect as not providing services to an area at all.” Finally, the three groups urged NTIA to use some of the $350 million in ARRA funds that it received through the stimulus to map bandwidth to school classrooms rather than simply residences or buildings. Without that data, it would be impossible to determine the status of broadband levels to student desks as well as bandwidth per student ratios, all of which are critical to ascertaining school broadband needs.

** Senate Version of ATTAIN Introduced ** The original trio of Senators – Bingaman (D-NM), Burr (R-NC) and Murray (D-WA) – who introduced the CoSN-supported revamp of the Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) program in 2007 have resumed their efforts to pass this legislation in this new Congress. Labeling the bill with a new number – S.818 – but with the same name – the Achievement Through Technology and Innovation Act (ATTAIN), those three Senators were joined by Senators Kennedy (D-MA) and Hatch (R-UT) in introducing ATTAIN in late March. This bill will serve as a companion to already introduced ATTAIN legislation in the House, HR 558, which was introduced by Representatives Roybal Allard (D-CA), Hinojosa (D-TX), Biggert (R-IL) and Kind (D-WI). Prospects for action on this legislation remains uncertain as ATTAIN is likely to move only in concert with overall Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization legislation. ATTAIN would make significant adjustments to current law (EETT) by: In his floor statement introducing the bill, lead sponsor Senator Jeff Bingaman noted CoSN’s support for this legislation and stated: “The bill I am introducing represents a critical step forward in advancing learning technologies for millions of students across the country. Many schools lack the capacity and training necessary for the 21st century classroom and to meet the needs and expectations of today’s digital native students. Furthermore, technology and e-learning in our schools are necessary to meet our Nation’s science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education needs and to provide students with the skills necessary to succeed in the 21st century knowledge-based, global economy.”
 * targeting its funding towards supporting technology-rich systemic reform initiatives with proven track records as well as intensive technology professional development
 * more closely aligning the program with NCLB’s core mission through prioritizing competitive grant awards for schools identified as in need of improvement, including those with a large percentage of Limited English Proficient students and students with disabilities
 * strengthening the program’s emphasis on teacher quality and technology skills by raising the portion of formula-grants set aside for professional development from 25% to 40%
 * reinvigorating NCLB’s requirement that students attain technology literacy by the eighth grade by mandating that states assess, at least once by the eighth grade, progress by students towards attaining technology literacy proficiency
 * increasing the share of state-to-local funding distributed by formula from 50% to 60% and adding a $3000 minimum formula grant distribution in order to assure that more school districts receive allocations of sufficient size to permit them to operate significant education technology programs

** ARRA Funds Begin to Roll-Out But Ed Tech Funds Remain in Limbo ** While every day witnesses a new announcement from the US Department of Education that particular categories of recovery funds are being disseminated or that specific states have received state financial stabilization dollars, no official word has come from the Department about when the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) education technology dollars will reach districts. Additionally, the Department has yet to release guidance on the ARRA-created $5 billion Race to the Top program and the $650 million Innovation Fund, both of which may provide technology funding opportunities. The first round of the largest ARRA program – $53.4 billion State Financial Stabilization Fund (SFSF) – began to reach states in mid-April as several states completed successfully the Department’s relatively straight-forward applications. On April 17, the Department announced that California would receive $4 billion in SFSF funding and that, to date, “California has received nearly $1.3 billion in education stimulus funds – representing a combination of funding for Title I, IDEA, Vocational Rehabilitation Grants, Independent Living Grants, Impact Aid dollars and Homeless Education Grants.” Three days later, the Department announced that Illinois was receiving its $1.4 billion first installment from SFSF to go along with $500 million it had received from other stimulus program funds. On the same day, South Dakota became the third state to qualify for SFSF Part 1 funds, receiving $85.4 million from the Department. Meanwhile, education technology advocates continue to seek answers as to when education technology dollars from the stimulus package will finally be released and what requirements, if any, states and districts will be required to meet to gain access to those dollars. The Department has indicated at various points in the past month that it will not dole out the $650 million in ed tech money until the Fall and that the money may arrive in two separate tranches. Education technology advocacy groups, including CoSN, continue to push for rapid and unitary dissemination of ARRA ed tech dollars.

In the meantime, we are calling on you NOW because last week the House released its FY 10 appropriations bill which includes a 65% cut to the Enhancing Education Through Technology program to $100 million. It is now time to make our voices heard again in opposition to this cut. We still have time to make a difference. The full House and the Senate can make changes to what the President has proposed and the House Appropriations Committee has supported. The Senate will release its funding recommendations on July, 28. So, we have small window to influence the Senate mark. ACTION NEEDED NOW! The strongest action that you can take is to telephone and e-mail the Capitol Hill staffers that you met with during your Storm the Hill visits and urge them to restore the proposed cuts to EETT and appropriate $269.9 million for EETT in FY10. A phone conversation would be ideal. You now have connections in Washington DC; we encourage you to use them. You can affect change. Tell the staffers with whom you met: . That you oppose the House action that cut funding for EETT to $100 million. . That EETT should be funded at a minimum $269 million, its FY 09 funding level. . What will happen in your school, district or state if there is a 65% funding reduction, e.g. how many jobs will be lost, how many students will be impacted, how many technology upgrades will be postponed or cancelled entirely. . How valuable technology is to your school's, district's or state's teaching and learning, including any anecdotes or statistics that show a correlation between increased technology usage and improved student academics or engagement. . How your students need the skills and knowledge delivered by classroom technology to succeed in the job market and what each individual student and the community's economy stand to lose if ed tech in our schools is cut back substantially. Please use your voices and take advantage of the contacts that you made to Storm the Hill. It is important to contact all members of Congress, however the following Senators are members of the education appropriations committee and therefore are particularly important to contact. If you are from one of these states please telephone the staff person you met. Harkin (IA) Inouye (HI) Kohl (WI) Murray (WA) Landrieu (LA) Durbin (IL) Reed (RI) Pryor (AR) Specter (PA) Cochran (MS) Gregg (NH) Hutchison (TX) Shelby (AL) Alexander (TN)
 * ACTION NEEDED IMMEDIATELY!!!! (07/15/09)**

Action: Contact your U.S. Senators NOW to request that the "Preparing Teachers for Digital Age Learners" program be funded at $50 million for FY 10. The Senate will release its bill on July 28. Click on the following link to send a letter to your two U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative:
 * Received via email on 7/21/09**

Harkin (IA) Inouye (HI) Kohl (WI) Murray (WA) Landrieu (LA) Durbin (IL) Reed (RI) Pryor (AR) Specter (PA) Cochran (MS) Gregg (NH) Hutchison (TX) Shelby (AL) Alexander (TN) Background: Many of you may already be aware that the "Preparing Teachers for Digital Age Learners" program that the ISTE SIGTE drafted was included in the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Now that the program is in law, we need to work to get it funded. President Obama did not include funding for this program in his FY 10 budget. It is now up to Congress to determine if this program is a top priority should be funded for FY 10. For more information about the Preparing Teachers for Digital Age Learners program and a copy of the legislation please go to: [|__http://capwiz.com/edtech/issues/alert/?alertid=13626861&type=co__]

====**ARRA FUNDING FOR BROADBAND (07/24/09) Update on New Jersey Technology Council Broadband Task Force and Mentoring. (I received this via email and completed the survey). A. Broadband Stimulus Funds - The National Telecommunication and Information Agency released their grant deadlines on July 2nd and the immediate focus is on developing a statewide Broadband map. The deadline for that grant is August 14th. The State Office of Information Technology has been designated by the Governor as the agency to apply for the funds and we are working with their office in developing that proposal which would show broadband providers to each resident in the state. Following that grant there will be subsquent ones which will focus on improving Broadband to anchor institutions and "Community Centers" where the information you have provided us will be beneficial. **====